archive

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

It really is a complicated question. Is it murder, killing a late-term abortionist? Of course it is, in the sense that it is unlawful. But the more precise term is assassination. Is it wrong, in that we are told to love our enemies? That Ehud is called a savior of Israel in the Bible, when he assassinated the king of Moab, well, that's Old Testament. Not a cop out. Jesus gives us other commandments, as, to love our enemies. Does this mean, love the enemies of our children? Does this mean, allow enemies to kill our children? -- or any other of the little ones whom Jesus would suffer to come unto him? Are we told to defend the defenseless? I'm sure we are, somewhere, although that may be OT as well -- but uncountermanded.

Do abortionists kill babies? Once we get around the nonsense of defining what a baby is, the answer is, yes, they certainly do kill babies. Young humans, as yet unborn, but human in the sense that an eagle egg is an eagle, and its destruction is a felony. No mystery there, only embarrassment and inconsistency. Human in terms of DNA. Human in terms of the natural course of human development. Human in terms of the fact that it, the fetus, the child, is loved as a child, if it is loved at all.

Abortionists kill babies. So what's the big deal with killing abortionists? Rule of law? Laws must be just to be valid. Religion? God uses fierce warriors of righteousness. Ethics? What higher ethic, than to defend the defenseless. It is a complicated question, but it's not a difficult one. It's just a matter of how we respond to evil.

How is the assassin not just like the Taliban, since he imposes his morality through violence?Likewise, how is our own abortionist law not like the Taliban's sharia, that socially approves the death of some unfavored individual, whose crime, which merits the death penalty, is simply to exist in its natural place, albeit where it is not wanted?

Tiller, the abortionist, personally and by hand terminated the beating of 60,000 hearts. He was a one-man Vietnam. Maybe he'll get his own wall. There's talk that this abortionist was the same as a Nazi. After all, Germany's laws allowed acts we all know to be vile. Abortion is vile, when we see it for what it is. What then is a moral response to those who act lawfully but heinously? Civil war? As with slavery? Was the bloody eradication of slavery moral? Would the targeting of enemy generals have been moral? To save the lives of our boys? If the mass slaughter of battle is countenanced in such a cause, is assassination to be forbidden? Should Robert E Lee have been assassinated? Rommel? Hitler? Mao? Do we have the right to try, in abstentia, enemy monsters, and execute them through covert means?

Is self defense wrong? Is a pacifist to stand by and let his wife and children be, collectively, raped and murdered? Or is there some higher duty than peace? Is the defense of the innocent to employ deadly force, then? Which innocent? Our own children? Those we know? Strangers? Those targeted by the will of a parent and the parent's paid agent?

How important is order, within our society? Can we allow those who dislike our laws to simply ignore them? Is the urgency of saving babies a greater matter than acting civilly? Is it acceptable to sacrifice one's own freedom and future for the largely symbolic gesture embodied in the violent death of an abortionist? Are lives even saved by such an act, given that there may be some possible dampening or chilling effect, but there are always plenty of abortionists to collect the $500 and up they get paid for, what, 5 minutes of industry, or 10?

Is the public response to such an assassination likely to favor the pro-life cause? Or is disrepute brought to it? Are attitudes hardened against it, because of the apparent contradiction? Is the cause set back, by years or decades? Or is it a lost cause, with abortion always with us and the lines already drawn and sides already hardened? And what witch hunt might we expect now, from an abortionist-controlled administration?

What of the abortionist? He knows what he's doing. He sees the body parts and the still living baby, sometimes. He could take out his stethoscope and hear the heartbeat. He has certainly heard the breathing, and no doubt heard the cries. The face of a diswombed child, with newly amputated limbs, not anesthetized, not yet dead -- it must be a sight to remember. It must be a sort of insanity, to convince oneself that this is not a human being. There must certainly be blood on his gloved hands. And God delays, so the flesh of yet another Herod is uninfested by the worms infecting his soul. Should we take this delay as yet more tarrying of the Lord, as a sort of blessing, or at least mercy, as a chance, prolonged ad extremis, for repentance? The life of an abortionist must be precious indeed, to continue at the cost of so much death.

What then are we to do, in this world, to protect the actual lives, the lives, of not quite born infants?

1 comment:

A comment suggested that Lee, and perhaps Rommel, do not belong in this list. They are there not because of any moral considerations, but because they were effective agents of an agenda. Without Lee, the Confederacy would have collapsed almost instantly, although guerrilla warfare would certainly have continued. Without Rommel, Africa would have been an Allied stronghold. Point is, lives would have been spared.

As for Sherman perhaps belonging on that list, because he "had much more innocent blood on his hands" -- well, slaveholders and abortionists belong on the same list. Their blood is not innocent.